How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Relative projectivity forces character vanishing off the controlling p-section
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let be a splitting -modular system whose residue field is algebraically closed, let be finite, and let be a -subgroup. If an -lattice is relatively -projective and is the ordinary character of , then for every whose -part is not -conjugate to an element of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: AC and the modular system, groups, lattice, character, and element in the Statement.
Relative -projectivity means that is a summand of its induction from (Relative projectivity and vertices for integral group lattices).
Integral Mackey decomposition and induction transitivity hold for these lattices (Integral Mackey decomposition and Higman's criterion for group lattices).
Finite-rank group lattices have Krull--Schmidt decompositions (Krull-Schmidt holds for finite-rank OH-lattices).
Induction across a normal subgroup of index preserves indecomposability when is algebraically closed (Green indecomposability for index-p integral induction and An algebraically closed field: every nonconstant polynomial has a root in the field).
AC is available (The Axiom of Choice). It is retained for the pair's inherited foundation contract; the proof below uses only finite coset sets and finite decompositions and makes no additional use of AC.
Proof
The assertion is immediate if , so assume otherwise. Let be the -part of . Since , the hypothesis implies ; in particular divides . Put Then and . The subgroup generated by is the Sylow -subgroup of the cyclic group . If does not contain , then : indeed, any power has and generates the whole Sylow -subgroup of .
By F1, is a direct summand of . Restricting to and using F2 gives for the corresponding integral -lattices . If some contained , then would belong to the -conjugate , contrary to the hypothesis. Thus step 1.1 gives for every . By induction transitivity,
Decompose each nonzero -lattice into indecomposables by F3. Because has index , F4 says that every is indecomposable. Hence step 2.1 is an indecomposable decomposition of . Since is a direct summand, Krull--Schmidt makes each of its indecomposable summands isomorphic to one of these induced lattices.
For any -lattice , scalar extension identifies with . Its direct-sum decomposition over the cosets of in is cyclically permuted by , because . Thus the matrix of has zero diagonal blocks, and its trace is zero. Applying this to every summand selected in step 3.1 and adding their traces yields Algebraic closedness is used exactly through Green indecomposability in step 3.1; all selections and sums are finite.
Depends on
- Relative projectivity and vertices for integral group lattices
- Krull-Schmidt holds for finite-rank OH-lattices
- Green indecomposability for index-p integral induction
- Integral Mackey decomposition and Higman's criterion for group lattices
- An algebraically closed field: every nonconstant polynomial has a root in the field
- The Axiom of Choice
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
11 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Craven, The Brauer Correspondence, Theorem 2.20 and proof, pp. 28–29 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Aschbacher–Kessar–Oliver, Fusion Systems in Algebra and Topology, proof of Theorem 5.4, pp. 276–277 (standard reference, not scraped)